Would you abort your unborn child if you know that he/she would be mentally retarded?

[TheLivingShadow]

sperrico87 said:

TheLivingShadow said:

We have fundamentally different viewpoints on the morality of this situation. Though in general I don't support abortion, I do agree and support the abortion of individuals with significant mental problems. However, we must first make sure that the individual actually has the disease. In some cases, the practice leads to inaccurate diagnoses, which can have tragic consequences. But even recognizing the non-zero chance that inaccurate diagnoses would be made, I still believe that, in general, this should be done.

I need you to tell me what you (or any other person with your same opinions) think about these few statements though to see exactly where we differ. You either disagree or agree with these statements, since they're given as true/false.

1. There's nothing special about life in general.

2. The consumption and use of animals and plants, but especially animals, by humans is not morally wrong.

3. All life dies and there is nothing after life (i.e. no Heaven, Hell, or anything)

I believe from saying True to all these three statements, through reasonable logic you arrive at:

4. There's nothing wrong with pre-selection of humans under the condition that it's only done on consideration of mental ability.

 

This mindset needs to be true, especially if we think into the future. Realistically, in the next century, we should be able to play with the genetic make-up of new-born people. I believe it would not be immoral to require people to have their children be much more intelligent than they would otherwise probably be if we were capable of doing that. In fact, it would be immoral not to allow this, in my opinion.

That's my opinion anyways. Please try to keep it civil and don't call me "sick" or "abominable" for this, even though in your mindset it will appear to be that case.

Human life is different than other life.  We are sentient.  We are able to have subjective experiences.  We have created philosophy and literature...written languages, economies, religions, etc, etc.  So comparing us to other animals is impossible.

In the next century, as you say, we may well have the ability to play with genetic make-up of new-borns.  This is wrong.  We are imperfect beings, and we will never be perfect.  People need to accept that.  There is something beyond tragic at the thought of changing and altering unborn children to make them "better".  At that point, individuality, what makes us human, is lost.

The irony is, I agree with you on the main part of some of the points that you precisely use to say I'm wrong, namely:

1. [Most] Humans are completely different from normal animals.

2. We [humans in our current state] will never be "perfect". (This will always be true anyways by the definition of perfection, so there is no need to consider this. We can, however, become better in a meaningful way, so I disagree with you on that.)

3. Individuality is what makes us human.

However, if you allow me, I'll proceed to show how these points agree with my theory more than yours actually:

First off, statement 3 follows as a corollary of statement 1. If animals had the thought level we have, then they would also perceive individuality.

Here's my bold claim. This is the only statement that is actually bold, as everything else follows logically: Mentally incapable humans are very close to the brighter animals in their thought and behavior. Here, mentally incapable means that they are obviously mentally challenged; I'm not reffering to slightly "dumb" people. This statement is bold because I don't have proof of this statement at the moment, but it seems intuitively clear. Research into neurobiology will show this statement to be true or false. I cannot fanthom it being false though, as there has to be a continuum of cognitive capability of sentient beings.

But other than that, look at this:

It's fine to consume and use non-endangered animals for our long-term and even our short-term benefit. I claim that this would not be true if the animals in question were demonstrably as intelligent as the average of us. This claim seems reasonable enough to me. But then we of course note that there is no special property that should be given to life, not in any general sense at least. And since there is no other-wordly consequence to death, there's no reason to feel bad about the death of an unborn animal, unless that animal was to be consumed or used.

However, we don't consume or use people of our own species because that would be ultimately detrimental to the happiness of the whole human group. In particular, it's not fine to consume or use mentally incapable individuals. But since these individuals resemble the brighter animals closely, therefore there's no reason to feel bad about the death of an unborn mentally incapable person. As you can see, I removed the condition that this person be used or consumed, since that would not be moral. But it is certainly obvious that the existence of these people is detrimental to the happiness of the whole human group.

My last sentence may sound a bit harsh. You may think that it follows "Oh well, then why don't we just kill them all? That'd get rid of them". The problem is that killing them is guaranteed to decrease the happiness of the whole human group, since family members and friends of these people will be emotionally opposed to this, and that is perfectly reasonable. My main thing is about prevention, not elimination.

***

Also, you said that we can't become perfect. We most certainly can't. But we surely can become better in measurable ways. If everyone without exception were happier, don't you think that would be an indication of a better world? Of a better human species? It is because I recognize that humans are imperfect that I believe we can become better. Otherwise, you're settling for a state that guarantees injustice and unhappiness due to the stupidity of people.